Judge Nap must be getting old and feeble. He has never really been the same since he got blasted over his claim that British Intelligence was wiretapping Trump. Many of the examples he posts are portrayed inaccurately, to the point of deliberately misleading. To what end?

For example - citing the 25% tariff as if this was something Trump was doing to hurt Americans. No dummy. This is what Trump is doing to get China to STOP hurting Americans with their unfair trade practices and theft of our intellectual property. As if that was OK and we should just continue losing with unfair trade deals forever.

Or that line about insulting the FBI every day. No, not at all. He insults the corrupt FBI 'leadership' which clearly crossed the line and attempted to covertly influence the US election. Strozk, Paige, McCabe, Comey, Rosenberg, Ohr.... you think they are not worthy of some harsh criticism!?! Their political bias manipulating the powers of the DOJ is just fine, but talking mean about it is somehow a worse crime??!?

Syria? The red line on Chemical weapons was enforced by Trump in a brilliant and measured military response. It was handled, twice, without serious escalation! As Commander in Chief of our armed forces should do. The same as when Ronald Reagan bombed Gadaffi and his family to send a similar message. (*note -Gadaffi was warned ahead of time by Italy to escape. Yeah, some great "allies".)

Shame on what Judge Nap has become. He is finally just like his hero "Goldwater".... a loser.

I voted for him because he is NOT a typical party stooge. Both parties have drifted to the respective left/right, my view is the American people want more central. I both agree and disagree with both parties depending on the issue.

It's not about 'eating our own'.... its calling a spade a spade (*are we still allowed to say that??) no matter which party flag they hold. I have on many prior occasions admired Judge Nap for his constitutional analysis. This appears to be a personal hit piece light on fact and strong on emotion. Garbage journalism. Fake news.

Was Trump not 'conservative' enough when he appointed Gotsuch and Kavanaugh, supporting them through WITHERING attacks where anyone else would have given in? Would Goldwater have wanted us to stay in the Paris Accord and destroy our economy? Would Goldwater have signed a deal with Iran to let them have a nuke in 10 years? Would Goldwater prefer the Clinton NAFTA plan or the better USMCA that Trump negotiated? Would Goldwater have let us follow Obama in the TPP treaty? Would Goldwater lower or raise taxes? Would Goldwater add or reduce the number of government regulations stifling economic growth? Looking at an issue with personal or political blinders on like Nap did here, trying to hand select the most biased anti-Trump statements and present them in the most misleading and damaging way possible is UTTER CRAP. And we need to STOP this game of political wins by personal destruction.

My guy, your guy, who cares. I care about intellectual honesty first and foremost on any issue.

I'm with GG on this one. I voted for Trump #1 as a vote AGAINST HILLARY, #2 because he ain't beholding to either party, and #3 he's really good at pissing off the liberals. (You could argue that one for #1, perhaps!) Is he Ronald Reagan? Hell NO! But nobody is or probably ever will be again..

Is President Trump R or not? It feels like a different breed riding the R label - sort of like Bernie Sanders the D label. He's not a D in a classic sense. But it's the best chance for him to make differences so he goes with it.

If cornered I'd say the President's political affiliation is Trump, and the R's were the best avenue for him to make a run given issues he's wanted to push were closer to that R platform.

I think he is trying to get the economic engine running strong. But he is up against those who have their heels dug in on both ends of the spectrum. So, to break that grip he does some bobbing and wearing. The entrenched are found on both sides but are one beast.

I think he is approaching it like a rational businessman taking a company (USA) that was floundering into a new and improved production level. He chops and hacks and pulls and pushes as he sees what needs what, to break up the stagnation.

Is that Conservative by definition? Don't know. But it is definitely against the entrenched and clearly threatening to those who protect it. He is also a threat to the established Liberal leadership and whatever scams they are running. That seems clear.

Don't know what he is but I know what he isn't. Anti Hillary? Yes, but not just because she is a snotty turd married to a sleazy dog but because she is scalping the American life for the sake of Their Empire, which he stands against.

It was a vote against THEM. All of THEM. and what THEY BUILT. At OUR Expense.

Maybe he is building something too or reviving what he stands for. He is a threat to anything threatening the middle-class / common-man worker and achieves his support by keeping industry alive and well.

Plug those holes, trim that fat, get it running fast, feed the beast and watch America come roaring back... Anti - Left, Anti-theft. Support those that want to build a more prosperous America and to hell with the ones that won't play fair.

The man is a Fighter with a vision. Call Him what you will... everyone else does.

Would Goldwater have grown the deficit and national debt? Would he have further eroded our 2A rights? Would Goldwater have sided with Putin over his own country's intelligence agencies? When given the chance to hold Russia accountable for Crimea and the Ukraine, would he have blamed both sides including the US? Would Goldwater have bragged about assaulting women? Would Goldwater have spent endless hours tweeting misinformation. lies, and propaganda? Would Goldwater have shown contempt for the 1A and the separation of powers and rule of law at every possible opportunity?

I generally don't like labels, but Trump is no conservative. He's a populist.

Would Goldwater be able to swim with these Sharks and not get Eaten? Different time and challenges = different strategies. Would President Trump be more "like him" if it was back then? We don't know. He Probably wouldn't be interested in getting involved back then, Not enough excitement of his interest/character. He appeals to the populist but is a Brawling-tough-nut willing to slap any punk in the game and hug a thug if he must.

Populist sounds so much like appeasing but he is not that. Not by intention but perhaps by results.

You bring up good points Matt. My exchanges with Trax got me thinking yesterday, and then this article pops up. Just thinking a lot on this issue, and what great points people are bringing up here!

I have long refused party affiliation. I profess a belief in ideas and principles. Trump supports a lot of what I believe in, like conservative judges, controlled immigration/borders, lower taxes, less regulation, reducing establishment control etc.

He does some things that irk me as well, including some behaviors I find repulsive. But, his beliefs line more with mine than any other potential candidate at this point.

I guess we can take his approach, use him to accomplish what our country needs, and say "thanks" and move on when the time comes. I guess I will take his brand of what you call populism over what the other option being presented is.

Grey Liberal and Paul Zeidan are just a tick from being clones. Different angles, but all the lines eventually meet up. When you don't know the facts talk as if you do is what works for them and just keep repeating it.

Goldwater denounced the conservatism of Ronald Reagan as being "radical". Goldwater was a conservative compared to Humphrey or LBJ. He may have been more conservative for the day than JFK or Nixon. Goldwater was far more moderate by true measures of conservatism than what many give him credit for. Goldwater wasn't exactly a McCain RINO, but not far off.

What one did on election day one way or another does not define what President Trump has accomplished by today. Initially I backed Bobby Jindal, but that soon was obvious not to be. I then jumped on the Ted Cruz train and road it until I no longer could. I did not trust Trump because at that point we simply did not know what we had. But left with the two choices, the choice was very clear. We DID know what we had in Hilda, and if Trump accomplished just a slim slice of what he was promising it was clearly a major plus to go with Trump. President Trump has surpassed all expectations in nothing but positive ways. Warts galore, but not in terms of production. In terms of production President Trump is simply the most conservative leader in the White House this nation has had in modern times. Abe Lincoln was a populist president and despised by the opposing Party AND many members of his own Party. Being a populist president does not mean you are not successful and does not mean you are not conservative.

Trump is exactly what we NEED now, because both parties have become so corrupt and entrenched that only an outsider with thick [orange] skin could survive. Trump has taken more continuous ugly and vicious attacks from every direction than anyone in my lifetime. And style be damned, he has proven to be a tenacious and resilient fighter without equal. Which is what I think we needed most of all.

Standing up to literally the entire world and backing out of that dopey Paris Accord was his first YUGE victory to put America first. Finally. And getting an effective wall built to fix_improve this border fiasco is going to be icing on the cake!!

Look at the last two "Republican" candidates for President. Could McCain have accomplished a fraction of what Trump has done? Could Romney? Would either have even tried?!?!?

I'm positive that he is everything we needed because of the way he handles himself. I don't like all the Twitter crap. I don't always prefer the way he goes after those he feels has wronged him or tries to embarrass him. But, it comes with the package that you get when you get a guy that handles himself the way he does.

You and several others have commented on his lack of acting presidential. I think that is what makes him the best thing we could have gotten. Because the last thing we needed was another presidential acting leader that didn't oppose establishment openly, harshly, and with the actions it takes to get attention on the matter at hand.

IS he perfect? Nope. Is there things I'd like for him to do differently? Yes there is. But, his intent is good and, I'll take that over the party loving presidents we've had recently.

President Trump has not only led as a conservative, but according to the ACU THE most conservative president in the modern era. Far more so than Reagan. That bares repeating. As also has been illustrated, we get a president who is not bridled by old establishment power order OR by Party. Unlike Reagan and every other president in the modern era. That is a MAJOR added positive bonus. Looking forward to the next 6 years and his leadership.

I dont think Trump considers himself a conservative, even though he is governing like one .. when he was running for POTUS, I always said he was a populist, he has exceeded my expectations ... yea, there are a few things he's done that ticked me off, but then there will NEVER be a perfect POTUS ... Reagan wasnt perfect either, and it has been shown Trump has been more conservative in his governing ... I do love the way he really pisses off the libs/dems, he shows them for what they are and they are not, and he has brought the spot light on to the DNC run FNM media showing just how disingenuous those jerks are ..... some one above said he is who we need now, that is correct ... remember, there will NEVER be a perfect POTUS...never ....

Yes, I believe pragmatist does indeed describe President Trump's method of action. Partially why he is so good at actually getting things done and done correctly, although the added bonus of not having to bow to Party or old school establishment part of it too. It is that power establishment, starting with Congress as a whole, that is the major thorn in the side for we the people. That will never change unless the America hating socialists and other assorted globalists can be rooted from their posts.

KPC would prefer that the President not be as confrontational, even antagonistic, with the press as he has been, but KPC realizes that without completely exposing them for what they are, and blowing up their stranglehold, nothing in terms of policy could possibly change for the better. Therefore, his style is "precisely" what is needed.

KPC would prefer that the President not do as much saber rattling in terms of tariffs and trade wars, but KPC also realizes that short term disruptions and pain are necessary for long term progress. Therefore, his "they need us a lot more than we need them" style, and the market jitters that it causes, is "precisely" what we need at this time.

KPC would prefer that the President be more eloquent in his communications but KPC also realizes that in order to cut through the media clutter, his non-politically correct, even crass style (including Twitter) in necessary at this time. Therefore, literally blowing up the status quo is "precisely" what is needed to reach the people that need to be reached.

Feel compelled to address some of the Reagan comments. Yes, he was my hero!

Trax, I believe Reagan today would be right of Reagan circa 1980s. He laid the groundwork for conservatism to be thought of as mainstream in the modern era. His view gave rise to the conservative talking heads like Limbaugh and others IMHO. If Reagan were elected today, with 30 years of talk radio/TV shows preaching conservative ideology, would it not make sense that it would be easier today to govern from the right? Our views of what it means to be conservative have expanded, largely because of the discussions he started.

Just like Trump, and every other president, I realize he would not be perfect. But I bet he would score higher on the conservative scale if he were around today and was just elected. I may be wrong, I will admit I hate to see the guy receive too much criticism. You know what they say about hindsight...

I'm not even sure what "conservative" means by todays definition. Heck, JFK wouldn't even make it in either party today. JFK, and Ronald Reagan were the only good presidents in my life time, not that I agree with them on everything.

And Matt would prefer people didn't talk in circles, but he realizes that some find it necessary to justify their "carefully chosen" words, which in this case were:

Is he everything I want? No.

and

Is he precisely the type of president we needed at this time? In my opinion, definitely.

One could certainly interpret that as meaning there are things that you want from a president, that aren't precisely what we need. I was just trying to understand that logic.

Claiming that you want a president that is less confrontational, antagonistic, and more eloquent, while claiming those character traits are precisely what we need still sounds a lot like double speak to me, but maybe I'm not intelligent enough to understand.

Personally, I think a president that was less confrontational, antagonistic, and more eloquent could accomplish the positive things you listed more effectively, and that's "precisely" what we need.

"Claiming that you want a president that is less confrontational, antagonistic, and more eloquent, while claiming those character traits are precisely what we need still sounds a lot like double speak to me, but maybe I'm not intelligent enough to understand."

It's really not that hard to understand but yes, I suspect you might be correct.

While I might not "want" my physician to tell me that I need more exercise, I realize it is "precisely" what I need.

In an ideal world/country the current president would not need to mix it up ( play it rough and crude) as he does. He also would not need to be President Trump because the ridiculous things would be non-existent,

Since it is not even close to perfect ... we need what he does, to get where we want to go. Once there, a more perfect person, in all matters, may govern a more perfect country.

But, if the Jokers keep making it ugly then it will be a "double down of Trump medicine" 'till they get cured.

We need what he's got 'cause of what is... 'till we don't need it no more. And we wish it didn't have to be this way, but it does.

Like I said, I think a president that possesses all the things KPC "wants" would be more effective at doing all the things he thinks we "need". A president could still tackle the media/press bias, trade, immigration, etc... while being less confrontational, antagonistic, and more eloquent, and he'd be more effective at it.

IMO, Trump's "style" causes people to push back, often times irrationally, and not in the best interest of the country. Just look at what's happening with border security. For decades it was one of the few mostly non-partisan issues. Administrations from both sides have been able to pass legislation that strengthened our border security in the past. Now, Trump has polarized the issue with his brash my-way-or-the-highway "style", and our border security is in gridlock.

My mother used to say, it's not what you ask for, it's how you ask for it, that often matters the most. Trump obviously didn't learn that lesson.

I was waiting for KPC to pull that card. I'm surprised it took so long.

I struggled with the "if you don't vote, you can't have an opinion" cliche for years. Then, I decided if politicians had no obligation to keep their promises to me, I had no obligation to vote for them. I have no apologies for not voting in the last election, because I've never heard a single apology for the countless lies politicians have told me in the past.

And there you have it. It takes a real punk to strut around like they're smarter than everyone else but then be so in love with themselves they find themselves above voting. You have a wise mother KC. On the other hand "May I please have another serving of fresh cat poop served in a dirty ash tray please" is how some apparently choose to see the world.

Personally, I didn't vote for "myself"...I voted for my Children/ Grandchildren. I could see this Country taking a steep dive, heading to a point of no return. When all was said and done after the Primaries, there was only one possible way to curb it.

That being said, I was a fan of Trump from the onset, because I was tired of "Politicians" running the Show.

If I were a "dyed in the wool Democrat"...I think I would have found myself seriously torn...so, given the State of things, I could understand if someone couldn't bring themselves to cast a vote. Especially given the negative press onslaught that Trump received (and still receives on a daily basis).

My ideal President would be a lot different than Trump. I doubt my ideal President would have won.

I voted against Hillary with low expectations of Trump. He has surprised me with stuff that's better, and stuff that's worse than expected but I am thankful Hillary lost and we have a brief reprieve from our decline.

When I reflect on my lifetime, and ask myself what has changed politically to my personal detriment, I can't think of anything of much consequence. I still do the things I want, when I want, and accept the consequences, which haven't changed significantly. That only makes me admire the brilliance of our Founding Fathers more. They set up a system that was destined for gridlock. Those guys were truly brilliant!!

"I generally don't like labels, but Trump is no conservative. He's a populist.

Matt" X2.

Budget deficit spending, moral values, decorum, preparation, lying, consistency. It's a long list of things he has and does not have. I'm still hoping Romney or Kasich get to line up with him in the next primary (and yes, the Republican Nat Committee sounds like it's open to allowing challengers). I believe people have learned a lesson on this little "experiment."

But I know there are people here that Trump represents, just like there are liberals that the young socialist Ortiz represents. Maybe this is the start of more than just the red and blue teams being serious options for people.

Hope to keep this from devolving into another hand grenade tossing contest, LOL.

I have a good friend who refuses to vote when he feels both parties have sent terrible choices. It it his way of protesting. Different approach than I take, but that's OK. People voice their dissatisfaction in different ways.

He doesn't hesitate to call or email to voice his positions either. I don't follow his logic, but he is convinced he makes an impact. Maybe so.

I’ve always felt that just like in real estate development, something that Trump is very familiar with, in order to construct something beautiful, in many cases, an old, dilapidated, compromised structure must first be demolished and removed.

Seldom if ever are the people that do the demolition, the same people that do the new construction.

I see Trump as the demolition team. Hopefully he remains on the job long enough to tear down what needs to be torn down and make room for the beautiful structure that can be built in its place.

I don’t think anyone, including Trump himself, realized how deep the old structure went, and how resistant it was to being razed.

In a very real sense, Lincoln had to tear a government down too, and it cost him his life.

Change doesn’t come easy and the agents of change are often not appreciated until long after they’re gone.

GG, I don't think we are all far apart on what we would ideally like to have in a president. We differ in our belief in the necessity or non- necessity of his other characteristics and techniques of achieving what he sets out to achieve.

It would be a nice world/country if the look of civility was not a front for being "arrogant with style" but that is what we have/had. I thought the last administration showed themselves as just that. All nice and proper but not nice at all. That facade has crumbled and the real wickedness that looms behind that fake face is showing itself in full bloom. No one is making them act this way . If you make an excuse for them then why not say the same for him. I think you have the cart before the horse.

I will admit the air is better when we do...

You said: " I think a president that possesses all the things KPC "wants" would be more effective at doing all the things he thinks we "need". A president could still tackle the media/press bias, trade, immigration, etc... while being less confrontational, antagonistic, and more eloquent, and he'd be more effective at it"

Not likely. But maybe in a few years, the loudmouths and rude people will simmer down and he can let up. Did he start the fight? I don't think so.

Abusive institutions, parents, leaders, and people in power, in general, don't like to be challenged. They want the underlings to take their crap with a smile because THEY are smiling... I think the regular man knows when he's being abused and won't stand for it. They, we, sometimes decide to get nasty right back. Because being civil with an abuser doesn't get you anywhere.

So No, he can't bring a change that way, no more than Jesus could. Man is wicked and it takes some pain to move him back into humility. But in an ideal world, it would be nice ... That's not this.

Jeff, who did you pick for SC Justice? I picked Thomas over Roberts and probably was scored lower for this. Thomas is more conservative.

I picked him over Alito, really a libertarian. Has Thomas and Alito ever not been on the same side? Thomas being black to me makes him more relatively conservative. Comfortable with both these guys over Roberts.

HfW, yea, I did go with Clarence, as I felt and still feel Roberts screwed up with the Obamacare vote, and I still hold that against him .... ... High 80's(89) not 90's, hit the wrong button on the phone ... back to lap top now so I can watch Trump ... lol ... see, I told ya you were more conserv. than you think ;0)

"B&A, your wanting Romney or Kasich (WTF ??), you once again prove you are no conservative ... not even close .... a #neverTrumper - yes …"

JTV: I try to not specifically address individuals, preferring to address topics, but since you named me here goes. Yes, you are correct I am a never-Trumper.

And you are correct that men like Romney and Kasich represent my values. They are the type of men I am comfortable will make a decision with the same general analysis I would, and that's why I am drawn to them. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I agree with every position they take, but as far as trusting a politician I think they generally act in good faith. Trump represents you apparently, and that's fine.

As far as who is conservative, I would suggest that conservatives don't go out to websites to validate if someone else thinks they are something. That would be populist by definition I believe. As a Conservative I would be skeptical someone is trying to sell you on something with that quiz. Just food for thought. I am not saying I am any better or worse than you JTV, I just see the world differently. Part of the reason I post here occasionally is so that other bowhunters know we are not a "one size fits all" group.

Bowsniper, KPC and TT have been knocking it out of the park. They've run every pitcher off the mound. Well done.

"Trump's "style" causes people to push back, " Kinda the point. A "nice guy" or a traditional gentleman politician is not going to clean up this establishment mess we have, it's clear now they are the problem at this point. A system built to reward those who work within their system, not necessarily what is best for the country in the long term. From the politicians, to the election machines, managers and lawyers, to the talking heads who move within that system. Have you ever looked at who the media is and the incest within, married or related to politicians, career bureaucrats and political advisors? It's flipping scary. When Mary Matalin married James Carville...... you knew it was just a job.... a system that employed them both, a closed system not for the good of the country.....just the good of their respective bank accounts.

Many things I wish he had more self control with. But far more I think he has exposed issues and problems in the good ol boys system. "Conservative" or not he has governed FAR more conservative overall than anyone in my recent memory, and FAR better than I thought he would. He is taking on the issues he was elected to take on. Some might find comfort in the old bait and switch scam of establishment politicos, I do not. I like he is fearless in taking on issues where others pat the voters on the head and tell them to be a good little boy or girl and sit down....... bless your lil hearts....

If you don't call them out and call them what they are, political whores...... then it all just keeps on sailing along with no changes. There will come a time when hopefully such changes as term limits will be DEMANDED, and those opposed will be called out on it, not able to hide behind anything as is the current game. Until called out on it.... nothing will happen.

You can ask someone politely to do something..... then raise the tone. But for many, the only way you are going to make progress is call them the lying cheating weasel they are, go away and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

It's confrontational...... it's seems Trump has no issues with it as some do, and is fairly good at it. And IMO it's clearly being exposed as necessary in these times. Far more so than I thought it would be.

"it's been out there for a few months. Let me know what God tells you about it. I'm curious."

A classless reply. But, I didn't really expect anything more from you. Such a pillar of integrity and morality you have proven to be in the past. Top shelf character. After being privy to hear you couldn't muster the nuts to even vote, after all the whining and moaning you have done really personifies the "me" in you. And, shouldn't have surprised me in the least. Websters simply couldn't define hypocrite better then you do every single word you post on here complaining about this administration.

Now you can go have a PM party with your buddy and, talk about how un-Christian that was of me.

I guess we all have our different definitions of "class". You don't fall into mine, either. I say what is on my God-given mind, without "carefully choosing" or parsing my words. Perhaps you should try it. It's liberating.

Jeff, I know where I have always stood. A working class kid paying his own way through school, I knew way back then I had better uses for my money than the government. Was a Marine in college when they burned down the Army ROTC building on our campus, a Jesuit University. Never detoured me from doing what I thought was right.

But as a conservative I also will defend the rights of others to disagree with me. Most here really don't know what the majority of college professors attempt to accomplish because the whack jobs get all the press. And Republicans who are not supported in Education typically, have done a good job of dumping us all together. I have shared a lot of myself here to intentionally fight this stereotype.

Conservatives right here believe in free speech right up until it disagrees with them.

Let me use Matt's participation as an example. Yes, he can be a real agitator at times, and he is probably left of most of us. This last spat, his moral character has even been questioned. How knowing someone over an internet forum only can we question a person's morality? Did he admit to murder, cheating on his wife or abusing her, watching child pornography...? This type of behavior goes unchallenged because Matt's style or conduct, really mainly what he believes, is very unpopular.

I call Paul by his name, you call him Putz. That behavior should not question your moral character.

Like others have said, using labels falls short. I took the quiz you linked out of curiosity, and knew what answers to put to score higher. I was honest, but thought some questions needed another option. It appears I am left of many of you. I am comfortable with that, like most here probably, I have next to zero concern what others think about me that I only know on a forum.

Lots of excellent points made here. We have discussions like this one, frequently on my campus. It is a treat and very eye opening when a much more diverse crowd participates. Truly, those of us living here legally have been truly blest!

Frank, Matt’s character is in question with most folks. You might know him personally. But, the people on here mostly don’t. The only way they can associate with him is by his words here.

So, when you have a guy that takes opportunity to try and belittle the character or lives of others, things come back just like they are given. He’s made the choices to be the way he is on here. There really is no need to continually defend him for it because he’s the ring leader of these name calling matches.

Instigating people is not the high road in comparison to others way of dealing with disagreement.

I KNOW many of the responses here would be different in person. I’m certain of that. But, here is where we are and this dialogue is our introduction to each other.

WV Mountaineer Well said. Words have power and we build or destroy with them. There are many verses that speak about our self-control (words and actions and even our thoughts). Sin is not just outward acts btw. To even desire the sin is the beginning of sin.

I say this not because it is simply "in the Good Book " (Not pushing that intentionally) but it is in there because it is universally good. A simple search at "Got Questions" will provide inspiration and reasoning to change one's personal behavior Perhaps even the strength to do so.

There is nothing good in belittling anyone and especially when there are others on looking (reading) and being burdened by the vulgarity. It diminishes the character and nature of our interactions and effects others.

Matthew 12:34–35 "You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? rFor out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 rThe good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. ( Jesus )

"but as far as trusting a politician I think they generally act in good faith." (Romney and Kasich)

Woodrow Wilson acted in good faith. Jimmy Carter acted in good faith. Many of our worse presidents acted in good faith. it is the production that counts.

Anyone who supports the likes of Romney or Kasich or McCain in the past is not supporting a conservative. If they think they are, they've demonstrated their own ignorance. Kasich actually these days is a cleaned up flaming liberal more so than a conservative.

Thank you, and your points are well made I think we agree more than we disagree, and many of us have sinned here on the CF, myself included, obviously.

I am not defending Matt. He is quite capable of doing that on his own.

What I am attempting to do is point out some of the behaviors I see that do cause the initial irritations, but are not addressed early enough on to make a difference and thus people may not be aware they even caused an agitation.

Matt, mine and others' behaviors have at times fallen into the 'sinful behavior' category. But there is a big difference in these sins and what would commonly be accepted as immoral behavior. When we leap from someone annoying us to proclaiming a broad statement about their overall integrity and moral character, it should be challenged, especially when we only know a person peripherally. Help each other elevate our behavior.

We all need to pause a little, and ask how we can do better. I tried here, hope I am taken the way intended.

I don't know how anyone can be considered as having good character traits when they go out and beg for the support of someone they despise and once they get that support they turn right around and ridicule the person they begged support from. Seems a little hypocritical to me and last I checked, hypocrisy is not considered a good character trait...

Before I used my current handle, I went for some time as 'LW'. Matt and his cousin Scott gave me that name, Scott turning me on to BS.

Still being fairly new to archery, I had just shot my first big buck. I had taken a number of deer with bow, but nothing this big.

Shot at less than 10 yards while tending a doe. Looked like a perfect hit, tons of blood for the first 100 yards. Evening hunt, so I decided to come back in the morning, not wanting to push him.

I called Scott, and he came to help the next morning, no questions asked. What a hunter and tracker he is.

Well the blood trail started to really get sparse. I was becoming agitated. I made a silly comment, something like I didn't think bows were lethal enough to kill monster bucks with.

By the next day, Matt and Scott had nicknamed me 'Lethal Weapon', LW for short. They were brutal, but it was a hoot!

After Bush's election, Scott shortened it to just 'W'.

Yes, the person I know is generally a good guy, fun to be around and can give it as well as he gets it. We all have a side most never see here. You guys would probably enjoy a camp tremendously with Matt and Scott, and the BS would flow.

”How knowing someone over an internet forum only can we question a person's morality?”

Unfortunately, when it comes to this medium, that’s all we have. That’s why I believe we need to be careful what we post, and yes...choose our words wisely. Ironically, some even choose to mock others for doing that.

The fact that someone is different here than they are in real life just tells me that one of the two is fake. The only question becomes which one.

Like it or not, anyone who knows me would know that anything I post here I would have no problem saying in person.